Cassie Zimmerman

Comparison of risk stratification tools in predicting outcomes of patients with higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes treated with azanucleosides

Established prognostic tools in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) were largely derived from untreated patient cohorts. Although azanucleosides are standard therapies for higher-risk (HR)-MDS, the relative prognostic performance of existing prognostic tools among patients with HR-MDS receiving azanucleoside therapy is unknown. In the MDS Clinical Research Consortium database, we compared the prognostic utility of the International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS), revised IPSS (IPSS-R), MD Anderson Prognostic Scoring System (MDAPSS), World Health Organization-based Prognostic Scoring System (WPSS) and the French Prognostic Scoring System (FPSS) among 632 patients who presented with HR-MDS and were treated with azanucleosides as the first-line therapy. Median follow-up from diagnosis was 15.7 months. No prognostic tool predicted the probability of achieving an objective response. Nonetheless, all five tools were associated with overall survival (OS, P=0.025 for the IPSS, P=0.011 for WPSS and P<0.001 for the other three tools). The corrected Akaike Information Criteria, which were used to compare OS with the different prognostic scoring systems as covariates (lower is better) were 4138 (MDAPSS), 4156 (FPSS), 4196 (IPSS-R), 4186 (WPSS) and 4196 (IPSS). Patients in the highest-risk groups of the prognostic tools had a median OS from diagnosis of 11−16 months and should be considered for up-front transplantation or experimental approaches.

The Efficacy of Current Prognostic Models in Predicting Outcome of Patients with Myelodysplastic Syndromes at the Time of Hypomethylating Agent Failure

Several prognostic scoring systems have been developed to risk stratify patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) in order to serve as clinical decision tools. Such models include: the International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS),[1][1] the World Health Organization (WHO) classification-based

Outcomes of patients with myelodysplastic syndromes who achieve stable disease after treatment with hypomethylating agents

Treatment with hypomethylating agents (HMAs) improves overall survival (OS) in patients who achieve a response of stable disease (SD) or better (complete remission [CR], partial remission [PR], or hematologic improvement [HI]). It is not well established if patients who achieve SD at 4-6 months of therapy should be offered different therapies to optimize their response or continue with the same regimen. Clinical data were obtained from the MDS Clinical Research Consortium database. SD was defined as no evidence of progression and without achievement of any other responses. Of 291 patients treated with AZA or DAC, 55% achieved their best response (BR) at 4-6 months. Among patients with SD at 4-6 months, 29 (20%) achieved a better response at a later treatment time point. Younger patients with lower bone marrow blast percentages, and intermediate risk per IPSS-R were more likely to achieve a better response (CR, PR, or HI) after SD at 4-6 months. Patients with SD who subsequently achieved CR had superior OS compared to patients who remained with SD (28.1 vs. 14.4 months, respectively, p=.04). In conclusion, patients treated with HMAs who achieves CR after a SD status had longer survival with continuous treatment after 6 months.

Differential response to hypomethylating agents based on sex: a report on behalf of the MDS Clinical Research Consortium (MDS CRC)*

Abstract First-line therapy for higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) includes decitabine (DAC) or azacitidine (AZA). Variables have not identified differential response rates between these. We assessed the influence of patient sex on outcomes including overall survival (OS) in 642 patients with higher-risk MDS treated with AZA or DAC. DAC-treated patients (35% of females, 31% of males) had marginally better OS than AZA-treated patients (p = .043), (median OS of 18.7 months versus 16.4 months), but the difference varied strongly by sex. Female patients treated with DAC had a longer median OS (21.1 months, 95% CI: 16.0–28.0) than female patients treated with AZA (13.2 months, 95% CI: 11.0–15.9; p = .0014), while for males there was no significant difference between HMAs (median OS 18.3 months with DAC versus 17.9 months for AZA, p = .59). The biological reason for this variability is unclear, but may be a consequence of differences in cytidine deaminase activity between men and women.